document_title: United States Army Air Corps

question_text: when did the us army air corps become the us air force

question_tokens: when did the us army air corps become the us air force

text: United States Army Air Corps

text: Creation of the Air Corps[edit]

text:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the Act entitled "An act for making further and more effectual provision for the national defense, and other purposes," approved June 3, 1916, as amended, be, and the same is hereby, amended so that the Air Service referred to in that Act and all subsequent Acts of Congress shall be known as the Air Corps.
Public Law 69-446, 2 July 1926[3]

tag: div

text: The U.S. Army Air Service had a brief but turbulent history. Created during World War I by executive order of 28th President Woodrow Wilson after American entrance in April 1917 as the increasing use of airplanes and the military uses of aviation were readily apparent as the war continued to its climax, the U.S. Army Air Service gained permanent legislative authority in 1920 as a combatant arm of the line of the United States Army. There followed a six-year struggle between adherents of airpower and the supporters of the traditional military services about the value of an independent Air Force, intensified by struggles for funds caused by skimpy budgets, as much an impetus for independence as any other factor.[4]

text: The Lassiter Board, a group of General Staff officers, recommended in 1923 that the Air Service be augmented by an offensive force of bombardment and pursuit units under the command of Army general headquarters in time of war, and many of its recommendations became Army regulations. The War Department desired to implement the Lassiter Board's recommendations, but the administration of President Calvin Coolidge chose instead to economize by radically cutting military budgets, particularly the Army's.[5][n 1] The Lampert Committee of the House of Representatives in December 1925 proposed a unified air force independent of the Army and Navy, plus a department of defense to coordinate the three armed services.[6] However another board, headed by Dwight Morrow, was appointed in September 1925 by Coolidge ostensibly to study the "best means of developing and applying aircraft in national defense" but in actuality to minimize the political impact of the pending court-martial of Billy Mitchell (and to preempt the findings of the Lampert Committee). It declared that no threat of air attack was likely to exist to the United States, rejected the idea of a department of defense and a separate department of air, and recommended minor reforms that included renaming the Air Service to allow it "more prestige."[7]

text: In early 1926 the Military Affairs Committee of the Congress rejected all bills set forth before it on both sides of the issue. They fashioned a compromise in which the findings of the Morrow Board were enacted as law, while providing the air arm a "five-year plan" for expansion and development. Maj. Gen. Mason Patrick, the Chief of Air Service, had proposed that it be made a semi-independent service within the War Department along the lines of the Marine Corps within the Navy Department, but this was rejected; only the cosmetic name change was accepted.[8][n 2] The legislation changed the name of the Air Service to the Air Corps, (in the words of one analyst) "thereby strengthening the conception of military aviation as an offensive, striking arm rather than an auxiliary service."[9]

text: The Air Corps Act (44 Stat. 780) became law on 2 July 1926. In accordance with the Morrow Board's recommendations, the act created an additional Assistant Secretary of War to "help foster military aeronautics", and established an air section in each division of the General Staff for a period of three years. Two additional brigadier generals would serve as assistant chiefs of the Air Corps.[10][n 3] Previous provisions of the National Defense Act of 1920 that all flying units be commanded only by rated personnel and that flight pay be awarded were continued. The Air Corps also retained the "Prop and Wings" as its branch insignia through its disestablishment in 1947. Patrick became Chief of the Air Corps and Brig. Gen. James E. Fechet continued as his first assistant chief. On 17 July 1926, two lieutenant colonels were promoted to brigadier general for four-year terms as assistant chiefs of Air Corps: Frank P. Lahm, to command the new Air Corps Training Center, and William E. Gillmore, in command of the Materiel Division.[11][n 4]

text: Of the new law and organization, however, Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate in the official history of the United States Army Air Forces concluded that:

text: "The bill which was finally enacted purported to be a compromise, but it leaned heavily on the Morrow recommendations. The Air Corps Act of 2 July 1926 effected no fundamental innovation. The change in designation meant no change in status: the Air Corps was still a combatant branch of the Army with less prestige than the Infantry."[10]

text: The position of the air arm within the Department of War remained essentially the same as before, that is, the flying units were under the operational control of the various ground forces corps area commands and not the Air Corps, which remained responsible for procurement and maintenance of aircraft, supply, and training. Because of a lack of legally specified duties and responsibilities, the new position of Assistant Secretary of War for Air, held by F. Trubee Davison from July 1926 to March 1933, proved of little help in promoting autonomy for the air arm.[12]

text: Five-year expansion program[edit]

text: The Air Corps Act gave authorization to carry out a five-year expansion program. However, a lack of appropriations caused the beginning of the program to be delayed until 1 July 1927. Patrick proposed an increase to 63 tactical squadrons (from an existing 32) to maintain the program of the Lassiter Board already in effect, but Chief of Staff Gen. John Hines rejected the recommendation in favor of a plan drawn up by ground force Brig. Gen. Hugh Drum that proposed 52 squadrons.[13][14][n 5] The act authorized expansion to 1,800 airplanes, 1,650 officers, and 15,000 enlisted men, to be reached in regular increments over a five-year period. None of the goals were reached by July 1932. Neither of the relatively modest increases in airplanes or officers was accomplished until 1938 because adequate funds were never appropriated and the coming of the Great Depression forced reductions in pay and modernization across the board in the Army.[15] Organizationally the Air Corps doubled from seven to fifteen groups, but the expansion was meaningless because all were seriously understrength in aircraft and pilots.[16] (Origin of first seven groups shown here)

text:
Group
Station
Date activated
Aircraft type

18th Pursuit Group
Wheeler Field, Hawaii
20 January 1927
PW-9

7th Bombardment Group
Rockwell Field, California
1 June 1928
LB-7, B-3A

12th Observation Group¹
Brooks Field, Texas
1 October 1930
O-19

20th Pursuit Group
Mather Field, California
15 November 1930
P-12

8th Pursuit Group
Langley Field, Virginia
1 April 1931
P-6

17th Pursuit Group²
March Field, California
1 July 1931
P-12

19th Bomb Group
Rockwell Field, California
24 June 1932
B-10

16th Pursuit Group
Albrook Field, Canal Zone
1 December 1932
P-12

10th Transport Group
Patterson Field, Ohio
20 May 1937
C-27 C-33

text: As units of the Air Corps increased in number, so did higher command echelons. The 2nd Wing, activated in 1922 as part of the Air Service, remained the only wing organization in the new Air Corps until 1929, when it was redesignated the 2nd Bombardment Wing in anticipation of the activation of the 1st Bombardment Wing to provide a bombardment wing on each coast.[17] The 1st Bomb Wing was activated in 1931, followed by the 3rd Attack Wing in 1932 to protect the Mexican border, at which time the 1st became the 1st Pursuit Wing. The three wings became the foundation of General Headquarters Air Force upon its activation in 1935.

text: Aircraft and personnel 1926–1935[edit]

text: In 1927 the Air Corps adopted a new color scheme for painting its aircraft, heretofore painted olive drab. The wings and tails of aircraft were painted chrome yellow, with the words "U.S. ARMY" displayed in large black lettering on the undersurface of the lower wings. Tail rudders were painted with a vertical dark blue band at the rudder hinge and 13 alternating red-and-white horizontal stripes trailing. In the early 1930s the painting of fuselages olive drab was changed to blue, and this motif continued until late 1937, when all new aircraft (now all-metal) were left unpainted except for national markings.[18]

text: Most pursuit fighters before 1935 were of the Curtiss P-1 Hawk (1926–1930) and Boeing P-12 (1929–1935) families, and before the 1934 introduction of the all-metal monoplane, most front-line bombers were canvas-and-wood variants of the radial engined Keystone LB-6 (60 LB-5A, LB-6 and LB-7 bombers) and B-3A (127 B-3A, B-4A, B-5, and B-6A bombers) designs.[n 6]  Between 1927 and 1934, the Curtiss O-1 Falcon was the most numerous of the 19 different types and series of observation craft and its A-3 variant the most numerous of the attack planes that fulfilled the observation/close support role designated by the General Staff as the primary mission of the Air Corps.[19]

text: Transport aircraft of the first ten years of the Air Corps were of largely trimotor design, such as the Atlantic-Fokker C-2 and the Ford C-3, and were procured in such small numbers (66 total) that they were doled out one airplane to a base. As their numbers and utility declined, they were replaced by a series of 50 twin-engine and single-engine small transports, and used for staff duties. Pilot training was conducted between 1927 and 1937 in the Consolidated PT-3 trainer, followed by the Stearman PT-13 and variants after 1937.

text: By 1933 the Air Corps expanded to a tactical strength of 50 squadrons: 21 pursuit, 13 observation, 12 bombardment, and 4 attack. All were understrength in aircraft and men, particularly officers, which resulted in most being commanded by junior officers (commonly first lieutenants)[n 7] instead of by majors as authorized.[20]  The last open-cockpit fighter used by the Air Corps, the Boeing P-26 Peashooter, came into service in 1933 and bridged the gap between the biplane and more modern fighters.

text: The Air Corps was called upon in early 1934 to deliver mail in the wake of the Air Mail scandal, involving the postmaster general and heads of the airlines. Despite an embarrassing performance that resulted numerous crashes and 13 fatalities and was deemed a "fiasco" in the media, investigating boards in 1933-1934[n 8] recommended organizational and modernization changes that again set the Air Corps on the path to autonomy and eventual separation from the Army. A force of 2,320 aircraft was recommended by the Drum Board,[n 9] and authorized by Congress in June 1936, but appropriations to build up the force were denied by the administration until 1939, when the probability of war became apparent. Instead, the Air Corps inventory actually declined to 855 total aircraft in 1936, a year after the creation of GHQ Air Force, which by itself was recommended to have a strength of 980.[21]

text: The most serious fallout from the Air Mail fiasco was the retirement under fire of Major General Benjamin Foulois as Chief of Air Corps. Soon after the Roosevelt administration placed the blame on him for the Air Corps' failures, he was investigated by a congressional subcommittee alleging corruption in aircraft procurement. The matter resulted in an impasse between committee chairman William N. Rogers and Secretary of War George Dern before being sent to the Army's Inspector General, who ruled largely in favor of Foulois. Rogers continued to severely criticize Foulois through the summer of 1935, threatening future Air Corps appropriations, and despite public support by Dern for the embattled chief, the administration was close to firing Foulois for his perceived attitude as a radical airman and his public criticisms of the administration during the controversy. He retired in December 1935 for the good of the service.[22][23]

text: The Roosevelt administration began a search for his replacement in September 1935, narrowing the choice to two of the three assistant chiefs, Henry Conger Pratt and Oscar Westover.  Pratt appeared to have the superior credentials, but he had been in charge of aircraft procurement during the Foulois years and was looked upon warily by Dern as possibly being another Mitchell or Foulois. Westover was chosen because he was the philosophical opposite of the two insurgent airmen in all respects, being a "team player".[23]

text: The open insurgency between 1920 and 1935 of airmen foreseeing a need for an independent air force in order to develop fully the potential of airpower had cost the careers of two of its near-legendary lights, Foulois and Mitchell, and nearly cost the reputation of two others, Pratt and Henry H. Arnold. In terms of the principle of civilian control of the military in peacetime, their tactics and behavior were clearly inappropriate. The political struggle had temporarily alienated supporters in Congress, had been counterproductive of the development of the Air Corps in the short run, and had hardened the opposition of an already antagonistic General Staff.  But through their mistakes and repeated rebuffs, the airmen had learned what they were lacking to prove the argument that the Air Corps could perform a unique mission—strategic bombardment—and the real threat of another world war would soon reverse their fortunes.[24]

text: Doctrinal development[edit]

text: Strategic bombardment in roles and missions[edit]

text:
"The Naval Air Force will be based on the fleet and move with it as an important element in solving the primary missions confronting the fleet. The Army Air Forces will be land-based and employed as an essential element to the Army in the performance of its mission to defend the coasts at home and in our overseas possessions, thus assuring the fleet absolute freedom of action without any responsibility for coast defense."

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Adm. William V. Pratt, 7 January 1931[25]

text: In March 1928, commenting on the lack of survivability in combat of his unit's Keystone LB-7 and Martin NBS-1 bombers, Lt. Col. Hugh J. Knerr, commander of the 2nd Bombardment Group at Langley Field, Virginia, recommended that the Air Corps adopt two types of all-metal monoplane bombers, a short-range day bomber and a long-range night bomber. Instructors at the Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS), also then at Langley, took the concept one step further in March 1930 by recommending that the types instead be light and heavy, the latter capable of long range carrying a heavy bomb load that could also be used during daylight.[26]

text: The Air Corps in January 1931 "got its foot in the door" for developing a mission for which only it would have capability, while at the same time creating a need for technological advancement of its equipment. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William V. Pratt was desirous of having general assent to his proposition that all naval aviation including land-based aircraft was by definition tied to carrier-based fleet operations. Pratt reached an agreement with new Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur that the Air Corps would assume responsibility for coastal defense (traditionally a primary function of the Army but a secondary, war-time function of the Navy) beyond the range of the Army's Coast Artillery guns, ending the Navy's apparent duplication of effort in coastal air operations. The agreement, intended as a modification of the Joint Action statement on coastal defense issued in 1926, was not endorsed by the Joint Army-Navy Board[n 10] and never had authority other than personal agreement between the two heads of service. Though the Navy repudiated the statement when Pratt retired in 1934, the Air Corps clung to the mission, and provided itself with the basis for development of long-range bombers and creating new doctrine to employ them.[27][28]

text: The formulation of theories of strategic bombing gave new impetus to the argument for an independent air force. Strategic or long-range bombardment was intended to destroy an enemy nation's industry and war-making potential, and only an independent service would have a free hand to do so. But despite what it perceived as "obstruction" from the War Department, much of which was attributable to a shortage of funds, the Air Corps made great strides during the 1930s. A doctrine emerged that stressed precision bombing of industrial targets by heavily armed long-range aircraft.

text: This doctrine resulted because of several factors. The Air Corps Tactical School moved in July 1931 to Maxwell Field, Alabama, where it taught a 36-week course for junior and mid-career officers that included military aviation theory. The Bombardment Section, under the direction of its chief, Major Harold L. George, became influential in the development of doctrine and its dissemination throughout the Air Corps. Nine of its instructors became known throughout the Air Corps as the "Bomber Mafia", eight of whom (including George) went on to be generals during World War II. Conversely, pursuit tacticians, primarily Capt. Claire Chennault, Chief of the school's Pursuit Section, found their influence waning because of repeated performance failures of pursuit aviation. Finally, the doctrine represented the Air Corps' attempt to develop autonomy from the General Staff, which enforced subordination of the air arm by limiting it to support of ground forces and defense of United States territory.

text: Technological advances in bombers[edit]

text: New bomber types under development clearly outperformed new pursuit types, particularly in speed and altitude, then considered the primary defenses against interception. In both 1932 and 1933, large-scale maneuvers found fighters unable to climb to altitude quickly enough to intercept attacking B-9 and B-10 prototypes, a failure so complete that Westover, following the 1933 maneuvers, actually proposed elimination of pursuits altogether.[29]

text: 1933 was a pivotal year in the advancement of aviation technology in which the all-metal airplane came of age, "practically overnight" in the words of one historian, because of the availability of the first practical variable-pitch propeller. Coupled with "best weight" design of airframes, the controllable pitch propeller resulted in an immediate doubling of speeds and operating ranges without decreasing aircraft weights or increasing engine horsepower, exemplified by the civil Douglas DC-1 transport and the military Martin B-10 bomber.[30]

text: The B-10 featured innovations that became standard internationally for the next decade: an all-metal low wing monoplane, closed cockpits, rotating gun turrets, retractable landing gear, internal bomb bay, high-lift devices and full engine cowlings.[30][31] The B-10 proved to be so superior that as its 14 operational test models were delivered in 1934 they were fed into the Air Corps mail operation, and despite some glitches caused by pilot unfamiliarity with the innovations,[n 11] were a bright spot. The first action to repair the damaged image of the Air Corps involved the movement of ten YB-10s from Bolling Field to Alaska, ostensibly for an airfield survey, but timed to coincide with the release of the Baker Board's report in July.

text: The successful development of the B-10 and subsequent orders for more than 150 (including its B-12 variant) continued the hegemony of the bomber within the Air Corps that resulted in a feasibility study for a 35-ton 4-engined bomber (the Boeing XB-15). While it was later found to be unsuitable for combat because the power of existing engines was inadequate for its weight, the XB-15 led to the design of the smaller Model 299, later to become the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, whose first flight was at the end of July 1935. By that time the Air Corps had two projects in place for the development of longer-ranged bombers, Project A for a bomber with a ferry range of 5,000 miles (8,000 km), and Project D, for one of a range of up to 10,000 miles (16,000 km).[32][33] In June 1936 the Air Corps requested 11 B-15s and 50 B-17s for reinforcing hemispheric defense forces in Hawaii, Alaska, and Panama. The request was rejected on the basis that there were no strategic requirements for aircraft of such capabilities.[34]

text: General Staff resistance to Air Corps doctrine[edit]

text: The Army and Navy, both cognizant of the continuing movement within the Air Corps for independence, cooperated to resist it. On 11 September 1935, the Joint Board, at the behest of the Navy and with the concurrence of MacArthur, issued a new "Joint Action Statement" that once again asserted the limited role of the Air Corps as an auxiliary to the "mobile Army" in all its missions, including coastal defense.[35] The edict was issued with the intent of again shoving an upstart Air Corps back into its place. However, the bomber advocates interpreted its language differently, concluding that the Air Corps could conduct long range reconnaissance, attack approaching fleets, reinforce distant bases, and attack enemy air bases, all in furtherance of its mission to prevent an air attack on America.[36][n 12]

text: A month later (15 October 1935), the General Staff released a revision of the doctrinal guide for the Air Corps, training regulation TR 440-15 Employment of the Air Forces of the Army.[n 13][37]  A year earlier MacArthur had changed TR 440-15 to clarify "the Air Corps's place in the scheme of national defense and ... (to do away with) ... misconceptions and interbranch prejudices."[38]  The General Staff characterized its latest revision as a "compromise" with airpower advocates, to mitigate public criticism of the Joint Action Statement, but the newest revision parroted the anti-autonomy conclusions of the Drum and Baker Boards, and reasserted its long-held position (and that of the Secretary Dern)[39][n 14] that auxiliary support of the ground forces was the primary mission of the Air Corps.[40]  TR 440-15 did acknowledge some doctrinal principles asserted by the ACTS (including the necessity of destroying an enemy's air forces and concentrating air forces against primary objectives) and recognized that future wars would probably entail some missions "beyond the sphere of influence of the Ground Forces" (strategic bombardment), but it did not attach any importance to prioritization of targets, weakening its effectiveness as doctrine.[10] The Air Corps in general assented to the changes, as it did to other compromises of the period, as acceptable for the moment.[41] TR 440-15 remained the doctrinal position of the Air Corps until it was superseded by the first Air Corps Field Manual, FM 1–5 Employment of Aviation of the Army, on 15 April 1940.[42][43][n 15]

text: In the fall of 1937 the Army War College's course on the use of airpower reiterated the General Staff position and taught that airpower was of limited value when employed independently. Using attaché reports from both Spain and Ethiopia, and endorsed by a senior Air Corps instructor, Col. Byron Q. Jones,[n 16] the course declared that the Flying Fortress concept had "died in Spain", and that airpower was useful mainly as "long range artillery." Air Corps officers in the G-3 Department of the General Staff pointed out that Jones' conclusions were inconsistent with the revised TR 440-15, but their views were dismissed by Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Stanley Embick with the comment: "No doctrine is sacrosanct, and of all military doctrines, that of the Air Corps should be the last to be so regarded."[44][n 17]

text: At the same time the General Staff ordered studies from all the service branches to develop drafts for the coming field manuals. The Air Corps Board, a function of the ACTS, submitted a draft in September 1938 that included descriptions of independent air operations, strategic air attacks, and air action against naval forces, all of which the General Staff rejected in March 1939. Instead it ordered that the opening chapter of the Air Corps manual be a doctrinal statement developed by the G-3 that "left little doubt" that the General Staff's intention was "to develop and employ aviation in support of ground forces." The Air Corps Board, on the orders of Arnold, developed a secret study for "defense of the Monroe Doctrine" that recommended development of long-range, high altitude, high-speed aircraft for bombardment and reconnaissance to accomplish that defense.[45]

text: The War Department, seeking to stifle procurement of the B-17 while belatedly recognizing that coordinated air-ground support had been long neglected, decided that it would order only two-engined "light" bombers in fiscal years 1939 through 1941. It also rejected further advancement of Project A, the development program for a very long range bomber.[34][n 18] In collaboration with the Navy, the Joint Board (whose senior member was Army Chief of Staff Gen. Malin Craig) on 29 June 1938 issued a ruling that it could foresee no use for a long-range bomber in future conflict.[n 19]  As a direct result, the last planned order of long-range bombers (67 B-17s) was cancelled by Craig[n 20] and a moratorium on further development of them was put into effect by restricting R&D funding to medium and light bombers.[46] This policy would last less than a year, as it went against not only the trends of technological development, but against the geopolitical realities of coming war.[47][n 21] In August 1939 the Army's research and development program for 1941 was modified with the addition of nearly five million dollars to buy five long-range bombers for experimental purposes, resulting on 10 November 1939 in the request by Arnold of the developmental program that would create the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which was approved on 2 December.[48]

text: Between 1930 and 1938 the Air Corps had obtained a mission in coastal defense that justified both the creation of a centralized strike force and the development of four-engined bombers, and over the resistance of the General Staff lobbied for another mission, strategic bombardment, with which it could persuasively argue for independence from the Army.[49] The cost of the General Staff's resistance in terms of preparedness had been severe, however. Its policies had resulted in the acquisition of obsolete aircraft as first-line equipment, stifled design development in the private sector of better types, retarded the development of radar and ordnance, and handicapped training, doctrine, and offensive organization by reneging on commitments to acquire the B-17. "From October 1935 until 30 June 1939, the Air Corps requested 206 B-17's and 11 B-15's. Yet because of cancellations and reductions of these requests by the War Department, 14 four-engine planes were delivered to the air force up to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939."[50]

text: GHQ Air Force[edit]

text: A major step toward creation of a separate air force occurred on 1 March 1935 with the activation of a centralized, air force-level command headed by an aviator answering directly to the Army Chief of Staff. Called the General Headquarters Air Force, the organization had existed in Army planning since 1924 as a subordinate element of Army General Headquarters, which would be activated to control all Army units in case of war mobilization.[51] In anticipation of military intervention Cuba in 1933,[n 22] the headquarters had been created on 1 October but not staffed.[52][n 23]  The Drum Board of 1933 had first endorsed the concept, but as a means of reintegrating the Air Corps into control by the General Staff, in effect reining it in.[53]

text: Among the recommendations of the Baker Board, established in the wake of the Air Mail scandal, was that the proposals of the Drum Board be adopted: an increase in strength to 2,320 aircraft and establishment of GHQ Air Force as a permanent peacetime tactical organization, both to ameliorate the pressures for a separate air force and to exploit emerging capabilities in airpower.[54] In the absence of a general headquarters (i.e. peacetime), GHQ Air Force would report to the General Staff. The War Plans Division of the Army reacted to the recommendations of the Baker Board by insisting that men and modern equipment for seven army divisions[n 24] be procured before any increase in the Air Corps was begun, and opposed any immediate attempt to bring the Air Corps up to the 1,800 plane-strength first authorized in 1926, for fear of antagonizing the Navy.[55][n 25] President Roosevelt approved an open-ended program to increase strength to 2,320 aircraft (albeit without any proviso for funding) in August 1934, and Secretary Dern approved the activation of GHQ Air Force in December 1934.[56]

text: GHQ Air Force took control of all combat air units in the United States from the jurisdiction of corps area commanders, where it had resided since 1920, and organized them operationally into a strike force of three wings.[n 26] The GHQ Air Force remained small in comparison to European air forces. On its first day of existence, the command consisted of 60 bombers, 42 attack aircraft, 146 pursuits, and 24 transports, amounting to 40% of strength in the tables of organization.[57] Administratively it organized the forces into four geographical districts (which later became the first four numbered air forces) that paralleled the four field army headquarters created in 1933.

text: The General Staff perceived its creation as a means of lessening Air Corps autonomy, not increasing it, however, and GHQ Air Force was a "coordinate component" equal to the Air Corps, not subject to its control. The organizations reported separately to the Chief of Staff, the Air Corps as the service element of the air arm, and GHQAF as the tactical element. However all GHQ Air Force's members, along with members of units stationed overseas and under the control of local ground commanders, remained part of the Air Corps. This dual status and division of authority hampered the development of Air Corps for the next six years, as it had the Air Service during World War I, and was not overcome until the necessity of expanding the force occurred with the onset of World War II.[58] The commanding general of GHQ Air Force, Maj. Gen. Frank M. Andrews, clashed philosophically with Westover over the direction in which the air arm was heading, adding to the difficulties, with Andrews in favor of autonomy and Westover not only espousing subordination to the Army chain of command, but aggressively enforcing his prohibitions against any commentary opposed to current policy. Andrews, by virtue of being out from Westover's control, had picked up the mantle of the radical airmen, and Westover soon found himself on "the wrong side of history" as far as the future of the Air Corps was concerned.[59][n 27]

text: Lines of authority were also blurred as GHQ Air Force controlled only combat flying units within the continental United States. The Air Corps was responsible for training, aircraft development, doctrine, and supply, while the ground forces corps area commanders still controlled installations and the personnel manning them.[53] An example of the difficulties this arrangement imposed on commanders was that while the commander of GHQ Air Force was responsible for the discipline of his command, he had no court martial authority over his personnel, which was retained by the corps area commander. Base commanders of Air Corps installations reported to as many as four different higher echelons.[60][n 28] The issue of control of bases was ameliorated in 1936 when GHQAF bases were exempted from corps area authority on recommendation of the Inspector General's Department, but in November 1940 it was restored again to Corps Area control when Army General Headquarters was activated.[61]

text: In January 1936, the Air Corps contracted with Boeing for thirteen Y1B-17 Flying Fortress prototypes, enough to equip one squadron for operational testing and a thirteenth aircraft for stress testing, with deliveries made from January to August 1937. The cost of the aircraft disturbed Secretary of War Harry Woodring, who denied requests for further purchases, so that although the air arm embraced strategic bombing as its primary doctrine after the creation of GHQ Air Force, by 1938 there were still only thirteen on hand. On 18 March 1938 Secretary Woodring implemented a plan that would have included the purchase of 144 four-engine bombers but approval was reversed in July when the moratorium against the long-range bomber program was imposed by the Joint Board.[62][n 29] The purchase of 67 B-17s (five squadrons) in FY 1940 as an increment of the Woodring program, using carryover funds, was cancelled by Craig.[63]

text: The moratorium also resulted from the enmity of the Navy incurred by the Air Corps on 12 May 1938 when it widely publicized the interception of the Italian ocean liner Rex by three B-17s while it was 610 nautical miles (1,100 km) off-shore of New York City.[64][n 30] Possibly under pressure from the Navy, Craig placed a limit of 100 nautical miles (190 km) on all future off-shore flights by the Army. The services together issued a revised Joint Action statement in November reasserting that the mission of the Air Corps in coastal defense was only for supporting the Navy if called upon to do so, while simultaneously authorizing for the Navy the long-range shore-based coastal patrol mission denied the Air Corps. Westover, who stridently opposed cancellation of the Woodring program, was killed in an air crash on 21 September 1938 and was succeeded by Arnold.[62]

text: Modernization and expansion of the force[edit]

text: New aircraft[edit]

text: The Air Corps tested and employed a profusion of pursuit, observation, and bomber aircraft during its 15-year history. The advent of the new generation of monoplanes and the emergence of strategic bombardment doctrine led to many designs in the mid and late 1930s that were still in use when the United States entered World War II. Among the key technology items developed were oxygen and cabin pressurization systems, engine superchargers (systems essential for high-altitude combat), advanced radio communication systems, such as VHF radios, and the Norden bombsight.[65]

text: As a further consequence of the Air Mail scandal, the Baker Board reviewed the performance of Air Corps aircraft and recognized that civilian aircraft were far superior to planes developed solely to Air Corps specifications. Following up on its recommendation, the Air Corps purchased and tested a Douglas DC-2 as the XC-32, which subsequently became the flying headquarters of Gen. Andrews.[66] The DC-2 so exceeded Air Corps specifications that 17 were purchased under the designation C-33 to equip the first permanent transport unit, the 10th Transport Group,[n 31] activated in June 1937 at Patterson Field in Ohio.[67][68] In 1939 the Air Corps recognized that it might soon require large numbers of modern air transports for use in war and purchased 35 DC-2/DC-3 hybrids, designated the C-39.[69] After the fall of France, the Air Corps in September 1940 ordered 200 untried and unproven Curtiss C-46 Commandos from Curtiss-Wright and 545 Douglas C-47 Skytrains, the forerunner of the more than 10,000 C-47s and related variants that served in World War II.[70]

text: Even with the doctrine of strategic bombardment as its priority, the Air Corps belatedly sought to modernize its tactical combat force under GHQ Air Force, bringing into service the Northrop A-17 and Douglas B-18 Bolo in 1936, the Seversky P-35 in 1937, and the Curtiss P-36 in 1938. All of these aircraft were obsolete by the time they came into service, and the outbreak of war in Europe spurred development of more capable types. By October 1940, over a year before the United States was drawn into the war, every piston-driven single-seat fighter eventually used by the USAAF during World War II was in flight test except the P-47.[71] However, the press of the enormous tasks confronting the Air Corps and the primacy of strategic bombing doctrine meant that development of a long-range capability for these new single-engined fighters was not undertaken until combat losses of bombers forced the issue.[72]

text: Notable fighters developed during the late 1930s and early 1940s were the Bell P-39 Airacobra (first flown April 1938), Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (October 1938), Lockheed P-38 Lightning (January 1939), North American P-51 Mustang (October 1940), and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (May 1941). Technological development of fighters occurred so rapidly that by December 1941 both the P-39 and P-40 were approaching obsolescence, even though both had been in production less than 18 months.[73] Bombers developed during this period were the Douglas A-20 Havoc (first flown October 1938), North American B-25 Mitchell (January 1939), Consolidated B-24 Liberator (December 1939), and Martin B-26 Marauder (November 1940).[74] Except for the B-24, P-47, and P-51, all of these had production deliveries that began before the AAF came into being in June 1941. Three other long-range bombers began development during this period, though only mock-ups were produced before World War II: the B-29 (study begun in 1938), the Consolidated B-32 Dominator (June 1940), and the Convair B-36 Peacemaker (April 1941).[n 32][32][75]

text: Expansion of the Air Corps[edit]

text: In a special message to Congress on 12 January 1939,[n 33] President Roosevelt advised that the threat of a new war made the recommendations of the Baker Board inadequate for American defense and requested approval of a "minimum 3,000-plane increase" for the Air Corps.[76][77][78][n 34] On 3 April 1939, Congress allocated the $300 million requested by Roosevelt for expansion of the Air Corps, half of which was dedicated to purchasing planes to raise the inventory from 2,500 to 5,500 airplanes, and the other half for new personnel, training facilities, and bases.[79] Orders for B-17s, which had been held in abeyance since June 1938, resumed in the summer of 1939 with incremental deliveries of 39 B-17Bs in 1939–40, 18 B-17Cs in 1940, and 42 B-17Ds in the first quarter of 1941.[n 35] The first large order for heavy bomber production, 512 combat-capable B-17Es, was placed in July 1940.[80][n 36]

text: In June 1939 the Kilner Board[n 37] recommended several types of bombers needed to fulfill the Air Corps mission that included aircraft having tactical radii of both 2,000 and 3,000 miles (revised in 1940 to 4,000). Chief of Staff Craig, long an impediment to Air Corps ambitions but nearing retirement, came around to the Air Corps viewpoint after Roosevelt's views became public. Likewise, the War Department General Staff reversed itself and concurred in the requirements, ending the brief moratorium on bomber development and paving the way for work on the B-29.[81]

text: Over the winter of 1938–1939, Arnold transferred a group of experienced officers headed by Lt. Col. Carl A. Spaatz to his headquarters as an unofficial air staff[n 38] to lay out a plan that would increase the Air Corps to 50,000 men by June 1941. The expansion program of the Air Corps was characterized by repeated upward revision of goals for increasing aircraft production, combat unit totals, the training of new personnel, and construction of new bases. New combat groups were created by detaching cadres from the existing 15 Regular groups to provide the core of the new units, with each older group providing the basis for an average of three new groups. Graduates of an expanded flight training program filled out the new groups and replaced the experienced personnel transferred from the older groups, resulting in a steady decline in the overall level of experience in the operational units.[82][83] In essence, groups "self-trained"[84] to proficiency standards set by training directives from the GHQAF.[85] Unable to keep pace with the revised programs for expansion of combat groups, unit tactical training for all groups suffered from a shortage of equipment (particularly combat aircraft), an unavoidable preoccupation with administrative details during organization, and a lack of training facilities, especially bombing and gunnery ranges, leaving a "vast gap between the desired status of training in combat units and their actual status immediately prior to ... Pearl Harbor."[86]

text: The initial 25-Group Program for air defense of the hemisphere, developed in April 1939, called for 50,000 men (12,000 pilots). Its ten new combat groups were activated on 1 February 1940.[n 39] Following the successful German invasion of France and the Low Countries in May 1940, a 54-Group Program was approved on 12 July,[87][n 40] although funding approval could not keep pace and only 25 additional groups were activated on 15 January 1941.[88] An 84-Group Program, with an eventual goal of 400,000 men by 30 June 1942, was approved on 14 March 1941, although not publicly announced until 23 October 1941.[89][n 41][90] In addition to unit training and funding problems, these programs were hampered by delays in acquiring the new infrastructure necessary to support them, sites for which had to be identified, negotiated and approved before construction.  The General Staff again was unwilling to assign any of this work to the Air Corps, and instead detailed it to the overtaxed Quartermaster Corps. When the QMC failed to put new air bases in place in either an efficient or timely manner, the Corps of Engineers was then assigned the task, although it continued to implement the policies already in place.[91][n 42]

text: By the time the Europeans went to war in September 1939, the Americans first expansion lagged so distantly in relation to its goals in manpower and tactical aircraft that Andrews described the Air Corps as a "fifth rate air force."[92] Of its 1,500 combat aircraft, only 800 were rated as first-line, 700 of which became obsolete by December 1941.[n 43] By comparison, the RAF had 1,750 first-line aircraft and the German Luftwaffe 3,750.  Moreover, the Luftwaffe had more personnel on the staffs of its headquarters and air ministry than were in the entire Air Corps (26,000). The first-line aircraft that would soon be considered obsolete were the B-18, A-17, and P-36. The only first-line aircraft in 1939 that remained so during World War II was the B-17, and it had to be significantly modernized before it was combat-capable.

text: The acceleration of the expansion programs resulted in an Air Corps of 156 installations of all types and 100,000 men by the end of 1940.[93] Twenty civilian flight schools and eight technical training schools were contracted to provide additional training facilities, and on 10 August 1940, Pan American Airways was contracted to provide meteorological and navigation training at Coral Gables, Florida, until military schools could be established.[94]

text: The first delivery of B-17Es took place in November 1941.[95] Two-thirds of all Air Corps officers were second lieutenants whose flying experience consisted of their flight training.[96] The Air Corps had 17 major installations and four depots, and most of its 76 airfields were co-located at civil airports or were small strips on Army posts.[97][n 44]

text: Procurement of aircraft remained a significant problem for the Air Corps until the eve of war, because of diversion of production to the Allies. On 16 May 1940, with the fall of France imminent, President Roosevelt delivered an address to Congress calling for a supplemental appropriation of nearly a billion dollars and the manufacture of 50,000 aircraft a year for the armed forces (36,500 of them for the Air Corps). Eighteen months later the AAF still had only 3,304 combat aircraft (only 1,024 overseas), and 7,024 non-combat aircraft, of which 6,594 were trainers.[98] Its command staff increased in October 1940 to 24 with the addition of 15 new general officer billets.[99][n 45] By June 1941, when the Air Corps became part of the AAF, it had 33 general officers, including four serving in observer roles to the Royal Air Force.

text: Dissolution of the Air Corps[edit]

text: Unity of Command difficulties[edit]

text: Arnold, at the direction of President Roosevelt in January 1939, oversaw an expansion of the Air Corps that doubled it in size from 15 to 30 groups by the end of 1940. The separation of the combat organization (GHQ Air Force) from the logistic organization (Air Corps) created serious problems of coordination nearly identical to the Division of Military Aeronautics/Bureau of Aircraft Production dual-authority mess of World War I. In March 1939, with the replacement of Andrews as commander of GHQ Air Force by Maj. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, Arnold was nominally assigned to "supervise" the tactical force but this did not resolve the divisions in command. On 5 October 1940, Arnold drew up a proposal to reorganize the air arm along functional lines, creating an air staff, unifying the various organizations under one commander, and giving it autonomy with the ground and supply forces—a plan which was eventually adopted in March 1942—and submitted it to Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, but it was immediately opposed by the General Staff in all respects.[100]

text: Instead, the two organizations were separated again by a directive from Marshall on 19 November 1940. Army General Headquarters was activated (more than five years after the activation of "its" air force) and GHQ AF placed under it, even though Army GHQ had been activated as a training organization.[101] Its logistical and training structure were again out of its hands, this time under the direct control of the chief of staff, and its airfields again came under control of the corps commanders. Maj. Gen. George H. Brett, acting Chief of the Air Corps, denounced the plan as "disastrous in war".[100][102] The problems already existing due to the lack of unity of command were exacerbated by the assignment of GHQ Air Force to Army GHQ. Emmons, who had begun his tour junior to Arnold, was promoted to lieutenant general to make him equal to the commanders of the field armies also controlled by Army GHQ. This forced him to report to and act under an inferior in rank (both Arnold and Brett were major generals).

text: As a compromise on all these issues, Marshall made Arnold "Acting Deputy Chief of Staff for Air." Although the Air Corps found the compromise unsatisfactory, this provisional position on the general staff did enable him to coordinate the two sections of the air arm until the organizational problems were repaired. Even in the short run, however, coordination proved to be no substitute for unit of command.[103]

text: Creation of the Army Air Forces[edit]

text: In the spring of 1941, the combat successes of the British Royal Air Force and the Nazi Germans' Luftwaffe under centralized control made clear that the fragmenting of authority in the American air arm had resulted in a dangerous lack of clear channels of command. After a joint U.S.-British strategic planning agreement (ABC-1) rebuffed the long-held argument that the Air Corps had no wartime mission except support of ground forces,[104] the War Department revised Army Regulation 95-5 on 20 June in an attempt to end the divisions without legislative intervention by Congress. In creating the Army Air Forces with the Air Corps and the Air Force Combat Command (a redesignation of General Headquarters Air Force) as its major components, the War Department also authorized an Air Staff to manage planning and execution of expansion of the air arm and named Arnold as Chief of the Army Air Forces. It did not, however, end the dual chain of command difficulties, as air units of Air Force Combat Command still reported to Army GHQ as well as Headquarters AAF.[105] Two further attempts by Arnold to implement his reorganization were again rejected by the WDGS in October and November.[106]

text: At this stage, support of airpower in public opinion reached unprecedented highs, increasing pressures from outside the military for an independent air arm with representation in the cabinet.[107][n 46] Arnold made a decision to postpone any attempts to exploit the opportunity to push for an independent Air Force. Assured of a free hand by Marshall, Arnold thought that it would "be a serious mistake to change the existing setup" in the midst of the crucial expansion effort,[108] which in less than five years would be more than 100 times its June 1939 size in personnel (much of it highly trained technically) alone. By November, however, the division of authority within the Army as a whole caused by the activation of Army GHQ prompted Marshall to assert that he had "the poorest command post in the Army." Defense commands, particularly those affecting air defense, had in Marshall's words showed a "disturbing failure to follow through on orders."[106] Confronted with Marshall's dissatisfaction with Army GHQ, the General Staff reversed its opposition. Marshall appointed an Air Corps officer, Brig. Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, to chair a "War Department Reorganization Committee" within the War Plans Division, using Arnold's plan as a blueprint.[109]

text: Based on the recommendations of McNarney's committee, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9082, which changed Arnold's title to Commanding General, Army Air Forces effective 9 March 1942, making him co-equal with the commanding generals of the other components of the Army of the United States.[110] On that date, War Department Circular 59 formalized the changes, abolishing Army GHQ and organizing the Army into three autonomous components: the Army Air Forces, the Army Ground Forces, and the Services of Supply, each with a commanding general reporting to the Chief of Staff. The Office of Chief of Air Corps (OCAC) was abolished (as was Air Force Combat Command) and the functions of the Air Corps transferred to the AAF, reducing the status of the Air Corps to a combat arm classification.[108][n 47]

text: The Congress did not dis-establish the Army Air Corps as a combat arm until 26 July 1947, when the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 502) became law. Most members of the Army Air Forces also remained members of the Air Corps. In May 1945, 88 percent of officers serving in the Army Air Forces were commissioned in the Air Corps, while 82 percent of enlisted members assigned to AAF units and bases had the Air Corps as their combat arm branch.[111]

text: Organization of the Air Corps[edit]

text: Army Air Corps, 1 March 1935[edit]

text: This list of units is a snapshot of the Air Corps on the date of activation of the General Headquarters Air Force. Except for the assignment of four reconnaissance (formerly observation) squadrons to the 1st and 2nd Wings in September 1936 for attachment to their heavy bombardment groups,[n 48] and the May 1937 exchange of the 12th Observation Group (inactivated) for the 10th Transport Group (activated), the organization of the Air Corps shown here remained essentially unchanged until activation of the first expansion groups on 1 February 1940.

text: General Headquarters Air Force[edit]

text: (Maj. Gen. Frank M. Andrews, Langley Field, Virginia)

text: (Brig. Gen. Henry H. Arnold, March Field, California)

text: (Brig. Gen. H. Conger Pratt, Langley Field, Virginia)

text: (Col. Gerald C. Brant, Barksdale Field, Louisiana)

text: Other flying units[edit]

text: Overseas units[edit]

text: (Lt. Col. Delos Emmons, Fort Shafter, Hawaii)[n 50]

text: (Lt. Col. William C. McChord, Albrook Field, Panama Canal Zone)[n 52]

text: Annual strength[edit]

text: Strength as of 30 June of each year

text:
Year
Strength

Year
Strength

Year
Strength

1927
9,979

1932
14,650

1937
18,572

1928
10,518

1933
14,817

1938
20,196

1929
12,080

1934
15,621

1939
22,387

1930
13,305

1935
15,945

1940
51,185

1931
14,485

1936
16,863

1941
152,125

text: Chiefs of Air Corps[edit]

text:
Maj. Gen. Mason M. Patrick, 2 July 1926 – 13 December 1927
Maj. Gen. James E. Fechet, 14 December 1927 – 19 December 1931
Maj. Gen. Benjamin D. Foulois, 20 December 1931 – 21 December 1935
Maj. Gen. Oscar M. Westover, 22 December 1935 – 21 September 1938
Maj. Gen. Henry H. Arnold, 29 September 1938 – 20 June 1941
Maj. Gen. George H. Brett, 20 June 1941 – 9 March 1942

text: Commanding generals, GHQ Air Force[edit]

text:
Maj. Gen. Frank M. Andrews, 1 March 1935 – 1 March 1939
Maj. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, 1 March 1939 – 20 June 1941

text:
Lt. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, 20 June 1941 – 17 December 1941
Maj. Gen. Carl A. Spaatz – c. January 1942 – 5 May 1942

text: Lineage of the United States Air Force[edit]

text:
Aeronautical Division, Signal Corps 1 August 1907 – 18 July 1914
Aviation Section, Signal Corps 18 July 1914 – 20 May 1918
Division of Military Aeronautics  20 May 1918 – 24 May 1918
Air Service, U.S. Army  24 May 1918 – 2 July 1926
U.S. Army Air Corps  2 July 1926 – 20 June 1941*
U.S. Army Air Forces  20 June 1941 – 18 September 1947*
United States Air Force  18 September 1947–present

text: * The Air Corps became a subordinate component of the Army Air Forces on 20 June 1941, and was abolished as an administrative organization on 9 March 1942. It continued to exist as one of the combat arms of the Army (along with Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, Corps of Engineers and Signal Corps) until abolished by reorganization provisions of the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 495), 26 July 1947.[1]


document_title: Danube

question_text: where does the danube enter the black sea

question_tokens: where does the danube enter the black sea

root

text: Danube

text: Names and etymology[edit]

text: Old European river names derived from a Proto-Indo-European *dānu. Other river names from the same root include the Dunajec, Dzvina/Daugava, Don, Donets, Dnieper, Dniestr and Dysna. In Rigvedic Sanskrit, dānu means "fluid, drop", in Avestan, the same word means "river". In the Rigveda, Dānu once appears as the mother of Vrtra. It is possible that dānu in Scythian as in Avestan was a generic word for "river": Dnieper and Dniestr, from Danapris and Danastius, are presumed to continue Scythian *dānu apara "far river" and *dānu nazdya- "near river", respectively.[1]

tag: p

text: Known to the ancient Greeks as the Istros (Ἴστρος) a borrowing from a Daco-Thracian name meaning "strong, swift" (akin to Sanskrit iṣiras "swift").[2] In Latin, the Danube was variously known as Danubius, Danuvius or as Ister. The Dacian/Thracian name was Donaris for the upper Danube and Istros for the lower Danube.[2] The Thraco-Phrygian name was Matoas,[3] "the bringer of luck".[4]

text: The Latin name is masculine, as are all its Slavic names (the name of the Rhine is also masculine in Latin, most of the Slavic languages, as well as in German). The German Donau (Early Modern German Donaw, Tonaw,[5] Middle High German Tuonowe[6]) is feminine, as it has been re-interpreted as containing the suffix -ouwe "wetland".

text: The modern languages spoken in the Danube basin all use names related to Dānuvius: German: Donau ([ˈdoːnaʊ̯]; Bavarian: Doana; Yiddish: Dunay דונײַ [dʊnaj]); Silesian: Důnaj; Upper Sorbian: Dunaj; Slovak: Dunaj ([ˈdunaj]); Hungarian: Duna ([ˈdunɒ]); Serbo-Croatian: Dunav / Дунав ([dǔnaʋ] or [dǔnaːʋ] Romanian: Dunărea ([ˈdunəre̯a]); Romani: Dunaja ([ˈdunaja]); Bulgarian: Дунав, Dunav ([ˈdunɐf]); Ukrainian: Дунай, Dunai ([duˈnɑj]); Czech: Dunaj (Czech pronunciation: [ˈdʊnaj]); Polish: Dunaj (Polish pronunciation: [ˈdũnaj]); Slovene: Donava ([ˈdóːnaʋa]); Italian: Danubio ([da'nubjo]); Romansh: Danubi.

text: Geography[edit]

text: Classified as an international waterway, it originates in the town of Donaueschingen, in the Black Forest of Germany, at the confluence of the rivers Brigach and Breg. The Danube then flows southeast for about 2,800 km (1,700 mi), passing through four capital cities before emptying into the Black Sea via the Danube Delta in Romania and Ukraine.

text: Once a long-standing frontier of the Roman Empire, the river passes through or touches the borders of 10 countries: Romania (29.0% of basin area), Hungary (11.6%), Serbia (10.2%), Austria (10.0%), Germany (7.0%), Bulgaria (5.9%), Slovakia (5.9%), Croatia (4.4%), Ukraine (3.8%), and Moldova (1.6%).[7] Its drainage basin extends into nine more.

text: Drainage basin[edit]

text: In addition to the bordering countries (see above), the drainage basin includes parts of nine more countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina (4.6%), the Czech Republic (2.9%), Slovenia (2.0%), Montenegro (0.9%), Switzerland (0.2%), Italy (<0.1%), Poland (<0.1%), the Republic of Macedonia (<0.1%) and Albania (<0.1%).[7] The highest point of the drainage basin is the summit of Piz Bernina at the Italy–Switzerland border, at 4,049 metres (13,284 ft).[8]

text: Tributaries[edit]

text: The land drained by the Danube extends into many other countries. Many Danubian tributaries are important rivers in their own right, navigable by barges and other shallow-draught boats. From its source to its outlet into the Black Sea, its main tributaries are (in order that they enter):

text:
Iller (entering at Ulm)
Lech
Altmühl (entering at Kelheim)
Naab (entering at Regensburg)
Regen (entering at Regensburg)
Isar
Inn (entering at Passau)
Ilz (entering at Passau)
Enns
Morava (entering near Devín Castle)
Rába (entering at Győr)
Váh (entering at Komárno)
Hron (entering at Štúrovo)
Ipeľ
Sió
Dráva
Vuka (entering at Vukovar)

18. Tisza
19. Sava (entering at Belgrade)
20. Tamiš (entering at Pančevo)
21. Great Morava
22. Caraș
23. Jiu (entering at Bechet)
24. Iskar (entering near Gigen)
25. Olt (entering at Turnu Măgurele)
26. Osam (entering near Nikopol, Bulgaria)
27. Argeș (entering at Oltenița)
28. Ialomița
29. Siret (entering near Galați)
30. Prut (entering near Galați)

tag: table

text: Cities and towns[edit]

text: The Danube flows through many cities, including four national capitals (shown below in bold), more than any other river in the world. Ordered from the source to the mouth they are:

text:
Germany

Donaueschingen in the State of Baden-Württemberg – rivers Brigach and Breg join to form the Danube
Möhringen an der Donau in Baden-Württemberg
Tuttlingen in Baden-Württemberg
Sigmaringen in Baden-Württemberg
Riedlingen in Baden-Württemberg
Munderkingen in Baden-Württemberg
Ehingen in Baden-Württemberg
Ulm in Baden-Württemberg
Neu-Ulm in Bavaria
Günzburg in Bavaria
Dillingen an der Donau in Bavaria
Donauwörth in Bavaria
Neuburg an der Donau in Bavaria
Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Kelheim in Bavaria
Regensburg in Bavaria
Straubing in Bavaria
Deggendorf in Bavaria
Passau in Bavaria

 Austria

Linz, capital of Upper Austria
Krems in Lower Austria
Tulln in Lower Austria
Vienna – capital of Austria and the most populous city on the Danube, where the Danube floodplain is called the Lobau, though the Innere Stadt is situated away from the main flow of the Danube (it is bounded by the Donaukanal – 'Danube canal').

 Slovakia

Bratislava – capital of Slovakia
Komárno
Štúrovo

 Hungary

Mosonmagyaróvár
Győr
Komárom
Esztergom
Visegrád
Vác
Szentendre
Dunakeszi
Budapest – capital of Hungary, the largest city and the largest agglomeration on Danube (about 3,300,000 people).
Szigetszentmiklós
Százhalombatta
Ráckeve
Adony
Dunaújváros
Dunaföldvár
Paks
Kalocsa
Baja
Mohács

 Croatia

Vukovar
Ilok

 Serbia

Apatin
Bačka Palanka
Futog
Veternik
Novi Sad
Sremski Karlovci
Zemun
Belgrade – capital of Serbia
Pančevo
Smederevo
Kovin
Veliko Gradište
Golubac
Donji Milanovac
Kladovo

 Bulgaria

Danube at Nikopol, Bulgaria in winter

Vidin
Lom
Kozloduy
Oryahovo
Nikopol
Belene
Svishtov
Ruse
Tutrakan
Silistra

 Moldova

Giurgiulești

 Ukraine

0 km, Danube Delta (Ukraine)

Reni
Izmail
Kiliya
Vylkove

 Romania

The Danube in Sulina, Romania

Moldova Nouă
Orșova
Drobeta-Turnu Severin
Calafat
Bechet
Dăbuleni
Corabia
Turnu Măgurele
Zimnicea
Giurgiu
Oltenița
Călărași
Fetești
Cernavodă
Hârșova
Brăila
Galați – largest port on the Danube
Isaccea
Tulcea
Sulina – last city through which it flows

tag: ul

text: Islands[edit]

text:
Adakale Island
Ostrovul Mare, Gogoșu
Balta Ialomiței
Belene Island
Csepel Island
Donauinsel
Great Brăila Island
Great War Island
Island of Vukovar
Island of Šarengrad
Žitný ostrov
Szigetköz
Island of Szentendre
Margaret Island
Csepel Island
Island of Mohács
Ostrovul Ciocănești
Ostrovul Mare, Islaz
Ostrvo (Kostolac)
Kozloduy Island
Ribarsko Ostrvo, Novi Sad
Vardim Island

text: Sectioning[edit]

text:
Upper Section: From spring to Devín Gate, at the border of Austria and Slovakia. Danube remains a characteristic mountain river until Passau, with average bottom gradient 0.0012% (12 ppm), from Passau to Devín Gate the gradient lessens to 0.0006% (6 ppm).
Middle Section: From Devín Gate to Iron Gate, at the border of Serbia and Romania. The riverbed widens and the average bottom gradient becomes only 0.00006% (0.6 ppm).
Lower Section: From Iron Gate to Sulina, with average gradient as little as 0.00003% (0.3 ppm).

text: Modern navigation[edit]

text: The Danube is navigable by ocean ships from the Black Sea to Brăila in Romania and by river ships to Kelheim, Bavaria, Germany; smaller craft can navigate further upstream to Ulm, Württemberg, Germany. About 60 of its tributaries are also navigable.

text: Since the completion of the German Rhine–Main–Danube Canal in 1992, the river has been part of a trans-European waterway from Rotterdam on the North Sea to Sulina on the Black Sea, a distance of 3,500 km (2,200 mi). In 1994 the Danube was declared one of ten Pan-European transport corridors, routes in Central and Eastern Europe that required major investment over the following ten to fifteen years. The amount of goods transported on the Danube increased to about 100 million tons in 1987. In 1999, transport on the river was made difficult by the NATO bombing of three bridges in Serbia during the Kosovo War. Clearance of the resulting debris was completed in 2002, and a temporary pontoon bridge that hampered navigation was removed in 2005.

text: At the Iron Gate, the Danube flows through a gorge that forms part of the boundary between Serbia and Romania; it contains the Iron Gate I Hydroelectric Power Station dam, followed at about 60 km (37 mi) downstream (outside the gorge) by the Iron Gate II Hydroelectric Power Station. On 13 April 2006, a record peak discharge at Iron Gate Dam reached 15,400 m3/s (540,000 cu ft/s).

text: There are three artificial waterways built on the Danube: the Danube-Tisa-Danube Canal (DTD) in the Banat and Bačka regions (Vojvodina, northern province of Serbia); the 64 km (40 mi) Danube-Black Sea Canal, between Cernavodă and Constanța (Romania) finished in 1984, shortens the distance to the Black Sea by 400 km (250 mi); the Rhine–Main–Danube Canal is about 171 km (106 mi), finished in 1992, linking the North Sea to the Black Sea.

text: Piracy[edit]

text: In 2010–12, shipping companies (especially from Ukraine) claimed that their vessels suffered from "regular pirate attacks", on the Serbian and Romanian stretches of the Danube.[11][12][13] However, these transgressions may not be considered acts of piracy, as defined according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but rather instances of "river robbery".[14]

text: On the other hand, media reports say the crews on transport ships often steal and sell their own cargo and then blame the plundering on “pirates”, and the alleged attacks are not piracy but small-time contraband theft that is taking place along the river.[15]

text: Danube delta[edit]

text: The Danube Delta (Romanian: Delta Dunării pronounced [ˈdelta ˈdunərij]; Ukrainian: Дельта Дунаю, Del'ta Dunaju) is the largest river delta in the European Union. The greater part of the Danube Delta lies in Romania (Tulcea county), while its northern part, on the left bank of the Chilia arm, is situated in Ukraine (Odessa Oblast). The approximate surface is 4,152 km2 (1,603 sq mi), of which 3,446 km2 (1,331 sq mi) are in Romania. If one includes the lagoons of Razim-Sinoe (1,015 km2 (392 sq mi) of which 865 km2 (334 sq mi) water surface), which are located south of the delta proper, but are related to it geologically and ecologically (their combined territory is part of the World Heritage Site), the total area of the Danube Delta reaches 5,165 km2 (1,994 sq mi).

text: The Danube Delta is also the best preserved river Delta in Europe, a UNESCO World Heritage Site (since 1991) and a Ramsar Site. Its lakes and marshes support 45 freshwater fish species. Its wetlands support vast flocks of migratory birds of over 300 species, including the endangered pygmy cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmaeus). These are threatened by rival canalization and drainage schemes such as the Bystroye Canal.

text: International cooperation[edit]

text: Ecology and environment[edit]

text: The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) is an organization consisting of 14 member states (Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Montenegro and Ukraine) and the European Union. The commission, established in 1998, deals with the whole Danube river basin, which includes tributaries and the groundwater resources. Its goal is to implement the Danube River Protection Convention by promoting and coordinating sustainable and equitable water management, including conservation, improvement and rational use of waters and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive.

text: Navigation[edit]

text: The Danube Commission is concerned with the maintenance and improvement of the river's navigation conditions. It was established in 1948 by seven countries bordering the river. Members include representatives from Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and Serbia, It meets regularly twice a year. It also convenes groups of experts to consider items provided for in the commission's working plans.

text: The commission dates to the Paris Conferences of 1856 and 1921, which established for the first time an international regime to safeguard free navigation on the Danube. Today the Commission include riparian and non-riparian states.

text: Geology[edit]

text: Although the headwaters of the Danube are relatively small today, geologically, the Danube is much older than the Rhine, with which its catchment area competes in today's southern Germany. This has a few interesting geological complications. Since the Rhine is the only river rising in the Alps mountains which flows north towards the North Sea, an invisible line beginning at Piz Lunghin divides large parts of southern Germany, which is sometimes referred to as the European Watershed.

text: Before the last ice age in the Pleistocene, the Rhine started at the southwestern tip of the Black Forest, while the waters from the Alps that today feed the Rhine were carried east by the so-called Urdonau (original Danube). Parts of this ancient river's bed, which was much larger than today's Danube, can still be seen in (now waterless) canyons in today's landscape of the Swabian Alb. After the Upper Rhine valley had been eroded, most waters from the Alps changed their direction and began feeding the Rhine. Today's upper Danube is but a meek reflection of the ancient one.

text: Since the Swabian Alb is largely shaped of porous limestone, and since the Rhine's level is much lower than the Danube's, today subsurface rivers carry much water from the Danube to the Rhine. On many days in the summer, when the Danube carries little water, it completely oozes away noisily into these underground channels at two locations in the Swabian Alp, which are referred to as the Donauversickerung (Danube Sink). Most of this water resurfaces only 12 kilometres (7 mi) south at the Aachtopf, Germany's wellspring with the highest flow, an average of 8,500 litres per second (300 cu ft/s), north of Lake Constance—thus feeding the Rhine. The European Water Divide applies only for those waters that pass beyond this point, and only during the days of the year when the Danube carries enough water to survive the sink holes in the Donauversickerung.

text: Since such large volumes of underground water erode much of the surrounding limestone, it is estimated that the Danube upper course will one day disappear entirely in favor of the Rhine, an event called stream capturing.

text: The hydrological parameters of Danube are regularly monitored in Croatia at Batina, Dalj, Vukovar and Ilok.[16]

text: History[edit]

text: The Danube basin was the site of some of the earliest human cultures. The Danubian Neolithic cultures include the Linear Pottery cultures of the mid-Danube basin. Many sites of the sixth-to-third millennium BC Vinča culture, (Vinča, Serbia) are sited along the Danube. The third millennium BC Vučedol culture (from the Vučedol site near Vukovar, Croatia) is famous for its ceramics.

text: Darius the Great, king of Persia, crossed the river in the late 6th century BC in order to invade European Scythia and to subdue the Scythians.

text: Alexander the Great defeated the Triballian king Syrmus and the northern barbarian Thracian and Illyrian tribes by advancing from Macedonia as far as the Danube in 336 BC.

text: Under the Romans the Danube formed the border of the Empire with the tribes to the north almost from its source to its mouth. At the same time it was a route for the transport of troops and the supply of settlements downstream. From AD 37 to the reign of the Emperor Valentinian I (364–375) the Danubian Limes was the northeastern border of the Empire, with occasional interruptions such as the fall of the Danubian Limes in 259. The crossing of the Danube into Dacia was achieved by the Imperium Romanum, first in two battles in 102 and then in 106 after the construction of a bridge in 101 near the garrison town of Drobeta at the Iron Gate. This victory over Dacia under Decebalus enabled the Province of Dacia to be created, but in 271 it was lost again.

text: Avars used the river as their southeastern border in the 6th century.

text: Ancient cultural perspectives of the lower Danube[edit]

text: Part of the rivers Danubius or Istros was also known as (together with the Black Sea) the Okeanos in ancient times, being called the Okeanos Potamos (Okeanos River). The lower Danube was also called the Keras Okeanoio (Gulf or Horn of Okeanos) in the Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodos (Argon. IV. 282).

text: At the end of the Okeanos Potamos, is the holy island of Alba (Leuke, Pytho Nisi, Isle of Snakes), sacred to the Pelasgian (and later, Greek) Apollo, greeting the sun rising in the east. Hecateus Abderitas refers to Apollo's island from the region of the Hyperboreans, in the Okeanos. It was on Leuke, in one version of his legend, that the hero Achilles was buried (to this day, one of the mouths of the Danube is called Chilia). Old Romanian folk songs recount a white monastery on a white island with nine priests.[17]

text: Ottoman–Hungarian and Ottoman–Habsburg rivalry along the Danube[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Between the late 14th and late 19th centuries, the Ottoman Empire competed first with the Kingdom of Hungary and later with the Austrian Habsburgs for controlling the Danube (Turks call it Tuna), which formed the northern border of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Many of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars (1366–1526) and Ottoman–Habsburg wars (1526–1791) were fought along the river.

text: The most important wars of the Ottoman Empire along the Danube include the Battle of Nicopolis (1396), the Siege of Belgrade (1456), the Battle of Mohács (1526), the first Turkish Siege of Vienna (1529), the Siege of Esztergom (1543), the Long War (1591–1606), the Battle of Vienna (1683), the Great Turkish War (1683–1699), the Crimean War (1853–1856) and the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878).

text: Economics[edit]

text: Drinking water[edit]

text: Along its course, the Danube is a source of drinking water for about 20 million people. In Baden-Württemberg, Germany, almost 30 percent (as of 2004) of the water for the area between Stuttgart, Bad Mergentheim, Aalen and Alb-Donau (district) comes from purified water of the Danube. Other cities such as Ulm and Passau also use some water from the Danube.

text: In Austria and Hungary, most water is drawn from ground and spring sources, and only in rare cases is water from the Danube used. Most states also find it too difficult to clean the water because of extensive pollution; only parts of Romania where the water is cleaner still obtain drinking water from the Danube on a regular basis.[18]

text: Navigation and transport[edit]

text: In the 19th century, the Danube was an important waterway but was, as The Times of London put it, "annually swept by ice that will lift a large ship out of the water or cut her in two as if she were a carrot."[19]

text: Today, as "Corridor VII" of the European Union, the Danube is an important transport route. Since the opening of the Rhine–Main–Danube Canal, the river connects the Port of Rotterdam and the industrial centres of Western Europe with the Black Sea and, also, through the Danube – Black Sea Canal, with the Port of Constanța.

text: The waterway is designed for large-scale inland vessels (110 × 11.45 m) but it can carry much larger vessels on most of its course. The Danube has been partly canalized in Germany (5 locks) and Austria (10 locks). Proposals to build a number of new locks to improve navigation have not progressed, due in part to environmental concerns.

text: Downstream from the Freudenau locks in Vienna, canalization of the Danube was limited to the Gabčíkovo dam and locks near Bratislava and the two double Iron Gate locks in the border stretch of the Danube between Serbia and Romania. These locks have larger dimensions. Downstream of the Iron Gate, the river is free flowing all the way to the Black Sea, a distance of more than 860 kilometres (530 mi).

text: The Danube connects with the Rhine–Main–Danube Canal at Kelheim, with the Donaukanal in Vienna, and with the Danube–Black Sea Canal at Cernavodă.

text: Apart from a couple of secondary navigable branches, the only major navigable rivers linked to the Danube are the Drava, Sava and Tisa. In Serbia, a canal network also connects to the river; the network, known as the Danube–Tisa–Danube Canals, links sections downstream.

text: In the Austrian and German sections of the Danube, a type of flat-bottomed boat called a Zille was developed for use along the river. Zillen are still used today for fishing, ferrying, and other transport of goods and people in this area.

text: Fishing[edit]

text: The importance of fishing on the Danube, which was critical in the Middle Ages, has declined dramatically. Some fishermen are still active at certain points on the river, and the Danube Delta still has an important industry.

text: The Upper Danube ecoregion alone has about 60 fish species and the Lower Danube–Dniester ecoregion has about twice as many.[20] Among these are an exceptionally high diversity of sturgeon, a total of six species (beluga, Russian sturgeon, bastard sturgeon, sterlet, starry sturgeon and European sea sturgeon), but these are all threatened and have largely–or entirely in the case of the European sea sturgeon–disappeared from the river.[20] The huchen, one of the largest species of salmon, is endemic to the Danube basin, but has been introduced elsewhere by humans.[21]

text: Tourism[edit]

text: Important tourist and natural spots along the Danube include the Wachau Valley, the Nationalpark Donau-Auen in Austria, Gemenc in Hungary, the Naturpark Obere Donau in Germany, Kopački rit in Croatia, Iron Gate in Serbia and Romania, the Danube Delta in Romania, and the Srebarna Nature Reserve in Bulgaria.

text: Also, leisure and travel cruises on the river are of significance. Besides the often frequented route between Vienna and Budapest, some ships even go from Passau in Germany to the Danube Delta and back. During the peak season, more than 70 cruise liners are in use on the river, while the traffic-free upper parts can only be discovered with canoes or boats.

text: The Danube region is not only culturally and historically of importance, but also due to its fascinating landmarks and sights important for the regional tourism industry. With its well established infrastructure regarding cycling, hiking and travel possibilities, the region along the Danube attracts every year an international clientele. In Austria alone, there are more than 14 million overnight stays and about 6.5 million arrivals per year.[22]

text: The Danube Banks in Budapest are a part of Unesco World Heritage sites, they can be viewed from a number of sightseeing cruises offered in the city.

text: The Danube Bend is also a popular tourist destination.

text: Danube Bike Trail[edit]

text: The Danube Bike Trail (also called Danube Cycle Path or the Donauradweg) is a bicycle trail along the river. Especially the parts through Germany and Austria are very popular, which makes it one of the 10 most popular bike trails in Germany.[23]

text: The Danube Bike Trail starts at the origin of the Danube and ends where the river flows into the Black Sea. It is divided into four sections:

text:
Donaueschingen–Passau (559 km)
Passau–Vienna (340 km)
Vienna–Budapest (306 km)
Budapest–Black Sea (1670 km)

tag: ol

text: Sultans Trail[edit]

text: The Sultans Trail is a hiking trail that runs along the river between Vienna and Smederevo in Serbia. From there the Sultans Trail leaves the Danube, terminating in Istanbul. Sections along the river are as follows.

text:
Vienna–Budapest (323 km)
Budapest–Smederevo (595 km)

text: Donausteig[edit]

text: In 2010 the Donausteig, a hiking trail from Passau to Grein, was opened. It is 450 kilometres (280 mi) long and it is divided into 23 stages. The route passes five Bavarian and 40 Austrian communities. An impressive landscape and beautiful viewpoints, which are along the river, are the highlights of the Donausteig.[24]

text: The Route of Emperors and Kings[edit]

text: The Route of Emperors and Kings is an international touristic route leading from Regensburg to Budapest, calling in Passau, Linz and Vienna. The international consortium ARGE Die Donau-Straße der Kaiser und Könige, comprising ten tourism organisations, shipping companies, and cities, strives for the conservation and touristic development of the Danube region.[22]

text: In medieval Regensburg, with its maintained old town, stone bridge and cathedral, the Route of Emperors and Kings begins. It continues to Engelhartszell, with the only Trappist monastery in Austria. Further highlight-stops along the Danube include the “Schlögener Schlinge”, the city of Linz, which was European Capital of Culture in 2009 with its contemporary art richness, the Melk Abbey, the university city of Krems and the cosmopolitan city of Vienna. Before the Route of Emperors and Kings ends, you pass Bratislava and Budapest, the latter which was seen as the twin town of Vienna during the times of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Since ancient Roman times, famous emperors and their retinue travelled on and along the Danube and used the river for travel and transportation. While travelling on the mainland was quite exhausting, most people preferred to travel by ship on the Danube. So the Route of Emperors and Kings was the setting for many important historical events, which characterize the Danube up until today.

text: The route got its name from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I of Barbarossa and the crusaders as well as from Richard I of England who had been jailed in the Dürnstein Castle, which is situated above the Danube. The most imperial journeys throughout time were those of the Habsburg family. Once crowned in Frankfurt, the emperors ruled from Vienna and also held in Regensburg the Perpetual Diet of Regensburg. Many famous castles, palaces, residences and state-run convents where built by the Habsburger along the river. Nowadays they still remind us of the bold architecture of the “Donaubarock”.

text: Today, people can not only travel by boat on the Danube, but also by train, by bike on the Danube Bike Trail or walk on the “Donausteig” and visit the UNESCO World Heritage cities of Regensburg, Wachau and Vienna.[25]

text: Important national parks[edit]

text:
Naturpark Obere Donau (Germany)
Donauauen zwischen Neuburg und Ingolstadt (Germany) – map
Nature protection area Donauleiten (Germany)
Nationalpark Donau Auen (Austria) – map
Chránená krajinná oblasť Dunajské luhy (Slovakia) – map
Danube-Ipoly National Park (Hungary) – map
Danube-Drava National Park (Hungary) – map
Naturalpark Kopački Rit (Croatia) – map
Gornje Podunavlje Nature Reserve (Serbia) – map
Fruška Gora National Park (Serbia)
Koviljsko-petrovaradinski rit Nature Reserve (Serbia)
Great War Island Nature Reserve (Serbia)
Đerdap National park (Serbia)
Iron Gates Natural Park (Romania)
Persina Nature Park (Bulgaria) – map
Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Site (Bulgaria) – map
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) – map
Măcin Mountains Natural Park (Romania)
Small Island of Brăila Natural Park (Romania)
Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania) – map
Danube Biosphere Reserve in Ukraine

text: Cultural significance[edit]

text: This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (May 2012)

text: The Danube is mentioned in the title of a famous waltz by Austrian composer Johann Strauss, An der schönen, blauen Donau (On the Beautiful Blue Danube). This piece is well known across the world and is also used widely as a lullaby. The Waves of the Danube (Romanian: Valurile Dunării) is a waltz by the Romanian composer Iosif Ivanovici (1845–1902). Joe Zawinul wrote a symphony about the Danube called Stories of the Danube. It was performed for the first time at the 1993 Bruckner festival, at Linz.

text:
In 2008, the Finnish indie rock band Wiidakko released a song called Tonava (Danube in Finnish) on their second album Asiat joita et voi koskaan saavuttaa.[27]
The Danube figures prominently in the Bulgarian National Anthem, as a symbolic representation of the country's natural beauty. In Lithuanian folklore songs appearance of Danube (Dunojus, Dunojėlis) is more common than the appearance of the longest Lithuanian river Neman.
The German tradition of landscape painting, the Danube school, was developed in the Danube valley in the 16th century.
One of Claudio Magris's masterpieces is called Danube (ISBN 1-86046-823-3). The book, published in 1986, is a large cultural-historical essay, in which Magris travels the Danube from the very first sources to the delta, tracing the rich European ethnic and cultural heritage, literary and ideological past and present along the way.
Jules Verne's The Danube Pilot (1908) ("Le Pilote du Danube") depicts the adventures of fisherman Serge Ladko as he travels down the river. Algernon Blackwood's The Willows, about a boat excursion on the river, is considered one of the greatest stories in the literature of the supernatural.
The river is the subject of the film The Ister (2004) (official site here [1]). Parts of the German road movie Im Juli take place along the Danube. In Nicolas Roeg's 1980 film Bad Timing, the border crossing over the Danube between Bratislava and Vienna is a recurring site in which the romance between Milena (Teresa Russell), Alex (Art Garfunkel) and Milena's husband Stefan (Denholm Elliot) is played out.
In the Star Trek universe, the Danube-class runabout is a type of starship used by the Federation Starfleet, most notably in the Deep Space Nine series.
The river is mentioned a great number of times throughout the Earth's Children Saga by Jean M. Auel, especially in the book The Plains of Passage, when the main characters Ayla and Jondalar travel west along this river, which they call the Great Mother River, due to its big size.
Miklós Jancsó's film the Blue Danube Waltz (1992)
The Hungarian sweet speciality, Duna kavics ("Danube pebbles") is named after the river.
A Hungarian folk ensemble, the Danube Folk Ensemble (Duna Művészegyüttes) is named after the river. The group is made up of 30 dancers and musicians. During their performances they show the Hungarian folk music, dance and costumes.
There are Hasidic (Chabad Nigunnim) songs called "dunai", dating from around 1800. They are often lullabys and are named after the river Dunay. Farmers around the river used to come to it and sing spiritual songs to thank their god for the great beauty which they saw every day.[citation needed]


document_title: G-funk

question_text: what rapper's unique sound was coined g-funk or gangsta-funk

question_tokens: what rapper 's unique sound was coined g-funk or gangsta-funk

text: G-funk

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: G-funk (which uses funk with an artificially altered tempo) incorporates multi-layered and melodic synthesizers, slow hypnotic grooves, a deep bass, background female vocals, the extensive sampling of P-Funk tunes, and a high-pitched portamento saw wave synthesizer lead. The lyrical content depended on the artist and could consist of sex, drugs, violence, vandalism and women, but also of love for a city, love for friends and relaxing words. There was also a slurred “lazy” or "smooth" way of rapping in order to clarify words and stay in rhythmic cadence.

text: Unlike other earlier rap acts that also utilized funk samples (such as EPMD and The Bomb Squad), G-funk often utilized fewer, unaltered samples per song.[1] Music theorist Adam Krims has described G-funk as "a style of generally West Coast rap whose musical tracks tend to deploy live instrumentation, heavy on bass and keyboards, with minimal (sometimes no) sampling and often highly conventional harmonic progressions and harmonies".[2] Dr. Dre, a pioneer of the G-funk genre, normally uses live musicians to replay the original music of sampled records. This enabled him to produce music that had his own sounds, rather than a direct copy of the sample.[3]

text: Origins[edit]

text: G-funk, given its name by Laylaw from Lawhouse Production, became a very popular genre of hip hop in the 1990s. Although G-funk originated in Los Angeles, the subgenre drew a large amount of influence from the earlier Bay Area-based sound known as Mobb music of the mid- to late 1980s, pioneered by Oakland rappers like Too Short & E-40. Too Short had experimented with looping sounds from classic P-Funk records over bass-heavy tracks during this period. However, unlike Bay Area Mobb music, Southern California-born G-funk used more portamento synthesizers and less live instrumentation. Too Short's lazy, drawl-heavy delivery was also a major influence on later G-funk rappers like Snoop Dogg.[4]

text: There has been some debate over who should be considered the "father of g-funk". Dr. Dre is generally believed to have developed the sound,[5] but Cold187um and KMG of Above the Law, Laylaw for Lawhouse Production have claimed that they developed the sound. Cold187um and KMG claim that Dr. Dre did not credit the group for pioneering the style when he released The Chronic, his Death Row debut album.[6] They both released records on Ruthless Records prior to that. Warren G and Snoop Dogg were with Cold187um before joining Dr. Dre and Death Row. On Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle album, Warren G and Daz Dillinger from Tha Dogg Pound claim they produced "Ain't No Fun", even though Dre is credited as the album's sole producer.[7]

text: The earliest use of sine wave synthesizers and Parliament-Funkadelic-style bass grooves in Dr. Dre's work appeared on N.W.A's single "Alwayz into Somethin'" from their 1991 album Efil4zaggin. When Dr. Dre's 1992 Death Row debut album The Chronic was released, the album was immensely successful, and consequently made g-funk a popular genre of hip hop.[8]

text: Another early G-funk pioneer, also from Compton, was rapper and producer DJ Quik, who was already using P-Funk instrumentals as early as 1991 in his debut album Quik Is the Name, though his most recognizable G-funk album would be 1995's Safe & Sound and also Battlecat, whose aesthetic is a progression from the early-'90s G-Funk sound pioneered by the group Above the Law, characterized by phat synth bass lines and soulful keys. Other well known artists that used G-funk were Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Tupac Shakur, Nate Dogg, Mac Dre, Spice 1, Geto Boys, Havoc & Prodeje, BG Knocc Out, Dresta, Rappin' 4-Tay, 3X Krazy and Warren G. Warren G's first album was called Regulate...G Funk Era, which featured Nate Dogg - who called himself "the king of G-funk".[9]

text: Many contemporary West Coast rappers have released albums with strong G-Funk influences in recent years.[10] Kendrick Lamar with Good Kid, M.A.A.D City, YG with Still Brazy and Schoolboy Q with Blank Face LP.